4.7 Article

VEGF Gene Therapy Fails to Improve Perfusion of Ischemic Myocardium in Patients With Advanced Coronary Disease: Results of the NORTHERN Trial

期刊

MOLECULAR THERAPY
卷 17, 期 6, 页码 1109-1115

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1038/mt.2009.70

关键词

-

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research [UCT-51532]
  2. Heart & Stroke Foundation of Ontario [NA-4788]
  3. St. Michael's Hospital Foundation
  4. Heart & Stroke/Richard Lewar Centre of Excellence in Cardiovascular research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Despite the promise of proangiogenic gene therapy most clinical trials have failed to show benefit for the primary end point analysis. The NOGA angiogenesis Revascularization Therapy: assessment by RadioNuclide imaging (NORTHERN) trial was a double-blind, placebo-controlled study of intramyocardial vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF165) gene therapy versus placebo, involving seven sites across Canada, designed to overcome major limitations of previous proangiogenic gene therapy trials. A total of 93 patients with refractory Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) class 3 or 4 anginal symptoms were randomized to receive 2,000 mu g of VEGF plasmid DNA or placebo (buffered saline) delivered via the endocardial route using an electroanatomical NOGA guidance catheter. There was no difference between the VEGF-treated and the placebo groups in the primary end point of change in myocardial perfusion from baseline to 3 or 6 months, assessed by single photon emission tomography (SPECT) imaging, although a significant reduction in the ischemic area was seen in both groups. Also, similar improvements in exercise treadmill time and anginal symptoms were seen in the VEGF and the placebo groups at 3 and 6 months, although again there were no differences between these groups. Despite the intramyocardial administration of a high dose of plasmid DNA using a percutaneous guidance catheter system, there was no benefit of VEGF gene therapy at 3 or 6 months for any of the end points studied.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据